[QUOTE=elowin;52282262]Not going to pretend like I have any idea whatsoever what he puts on his twitter because I don't and I don't care, but his videos are in no way just about feminists. He does make videos about feminists, but it's nowhere near being all of them or even a majority. And also at least with the videos about feminism of his that I have watched, which admittedly isn't all of them I guess, he very explicitly did not say that all feminists are dumb.[/QUOTE]
In an infamous blog post, the guy goes on a very strange rant about feminism based on the actions of a few.
[quote]Atheism+ was supposed to bring the atheist community together, but instead it ripped it in two. The worst part is that many of the famous atheists, Steve Shives, Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra and many others who helped me come out of religion and taught me to use logic and reason to come to my decisions had all thrown out basic logic and reason [B]and embraced a feminist mindset.[/B] Be skeptical, unless it's about feminism, be logical, unless it's about feminism, be reasonable, unless it's about feminism, debate ideas you disagree with, unless it's feminism. Someone disagree with you? Call them an MRA, misogynist, rapist or a terrible human being that is on the wrong side of history.[/quote]
[quote][B]Feminism does not have room for individual thought, feminism does not have room for questions, feminism does not have room for debate, feminism does not like to be challenged. You are either with them or against them and there are countless examples of people overreacting to simple questions and polite disagreement.[/B][/quote]
[quote]Feminists like to use words like rapist, rape-apologist or misogynist. These are lofty accusations and [B]it is frustrating that the feminist community [U]as a whole[/U] does not require strong proof of these kinds of accusations[/B]. A person's life could be ruined if he/she is labeled a misogynist or a rapist, yet these words are tossed around with as much care as food pellets at a petting zoo. My life could have been ruined simply because I didn't agree that consensual drunk sex between an established couple was rape.[/quote]
[quote]Feminism tried to invade the atheist community and ultimately failed. However, this is not much of a victory for reason... The Atheist community is still split in two. There are those who listen and believe and there are those who use skepticism. The biggest lesson I learned from Atheism+ is that not all atheists are skeptics. Some atheists really do act the way that Christians accuse atheists of acting.[/quote]
[quote]This was only the beginning of my journey of discovery. The feminist mind-set has made it's way into every other organization, ideology and community. The Canadian Government is currently led by a man who identifies as a feminist. I did not vote for him.[/quote]
[quote]Regardless of the organization they have infiltrated, everything regarding female representation is always wrong, no matter what. Every complaint, when met with a fix, is simply just flipped into a complaint about the fix.[B] When trying to appease a feminist, one will find himself/herself in a no-win scenario where everything is problematic because... feelings. If it FEELS wrong to a feminist it is wrong. This is the logic we're up against. There is literally no winning, there is no appeasing, there is only the victim and the oppressor. Is this the world we want to live in?[/B][/quote]
[url]http://armouredmedia.com/blog/identity-and-gender-politics-every-community[/url]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52282470]In an infamous blog post, the guy goes on a very strange rant about feminism based on the actions of a few.
[url]http://armouredmedia.com/blog/identity-and-gender-politics-every-community[/url][/QUOTE]
"Infamous"
According to who?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/4jPy8xt.png[/t]
Oh... Rationalwiki is the only relevant hit... So infamous...
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52282717]"Infamous"
According to who?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/4jPy8xt.png[/t]
Oh... Rationalwiki is the only relevant hit... So infamous...[/QUOTE]
because I can't get links from discord or telegram right
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52282748]because I can't get links from discord or telegram right[/QUOTE]
The word infamous generally implies infamy, IE negative fame. My point is that it must not be very "infamous" if the only relevant mention of it is rational fuckin' wiki.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52283372]The word infamous generally implies infamy, IE negative fame. My point is that it must not be very "infamous" if the only relevant mention of it is rational fuckin' wiki.[/QUOTE]
What are you even arguing? His point is obviously about the content of the blog post, seems like you're just deflecting. Who gives a shit whether or not it's well-known, that's not the main point here.
[QUOTE=Swiket;52279241]I don't recognize any of these people[/QUOTE]
And you are the better for it.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52283372]The word infamous generally implies infamy, IE negative fame. My point is that it must not be very "infamous" if the only relevant mention of it is rational fuckin' wiki.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I admit fault if it means that we actually argue something substantial instead of god forbid my use of the word "infamous" when talking about a blog post that I thought was relatively well known.
[QUOTE=elowin;52281148]It's pretty damn left leaning.
Free single-payer health care system, free education including higher educations, pretty strong welfare policies, we're some of the most extremely environmentalist nations on earth, big on equal rights, most of us hate the very concept of nationalism, and generally we put emphasis on the community over individuals.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but I don't think that's far left by any definition.
I mean it's pretty obvious in the context of thrawn's post that by "far left" he's referring to actual communism and not Scandinavian capitalist social democracy.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52283438]Sure, I admit fault if it means that we actually argue something substantial instead of god forbid my use of the word "infamous" when talking about a blog post that I thought was relatively well known.[/QUOTE]
Well, clearly you didn't really read it yourself. For example, your second quote, "Feminism does not have room for individual thought...," is pretty darn cherrypicked.
[quote]Ultimately, the fact that these people are feminists is not what bothers me, I could not care less if everyone on the planet identified themselves as a feminist, [B]what bothers me is that these people, these champions of reason and logic, get angry, harsh, irrational when faced with questions and criticism regarding their public statements on social issues.[/B] What bothers me is that they don't see how similar a religious belief is to an ideological belief. [B]Steve reacts to all criticisms about his feminist positions with anger, rage, insults and unfounded accusations of misogyny, and he reacts to simple lines of questioning with blocking accounts on Twitter and Facebook.[/B] Steve has gone as far as to say "The MRA are all misogynists" and "Fuck the MRA" when asked questions by Men's Rights Activists. [B]This is the way a close-minded brain-washed individual would react when faces with an opposing viewpoint.[/B] This is how a Christian would react when faced by questions and criticisms from a Muslim. Feminism does not have room for individual thought,[/quote]
What a totally unreasonable individual, pointing out similarities between rabid ideologues!
Or how about the "This was only the beginning of my journey..." quote? Once again, you've ripped it from the context it was presented in, as it is prefaced with:
[quote]Feminism tried to invade the atheist community and ultimately failed. However, this is not much of a victory for reason... The Atheist community is still split in two. There are those who listen and believe and there are those who use skepticism. The biggest lesson I learned from Atheism+ is that not all atheists are skeptics. Some atheists really do act the way that Christians accuse atheists of acting.[/quote]
This theme comes up throughout the whole blog post, one that you've apparently missed. He is using his personal history of a Christian to draw comparisons between the dogmatic sides of christianity, atheism, and feminism. While he does blanket-mention "feminists," it is implicitly qualified by the extreme and/or closed-minded ones. For proof of this, you need only look to the beginning paragraphs:
[quote] ... Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying an atheist can't also be an ideologue, be who you want to be, but when one tries to tack an ideological identity onto a non-ideological identity, some people are going to have a problem with that...[/quote]
[quote]I feel I have to remind people that there is such a distinction because I often speak of atheists and speak on behalf of atheists even though I don't personally use that term to describe myself. I'm also mentioning this distinction because there are people who treat atheism as if it were an ideology; an ideology whoms goal is to remove god from everything, remove belief from everything and abolish religion. Unfortunately I do not feel that way....[/quote]
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52285399]Well, clearly you didn't really read it yourself. For example, your second quote, "Feminism does not have room for individual thought...," is pretty darn cherrypicked.
What a totally unreasonable individual, pointing out similarities between rabid ideologues!
Or how about the "This was only the beginning of my journey..." quote? Once again, you've ripped it from the context it was presented in, as it is prefaced with:
This theme comes up throughout the whole blog post, one that you've apparently missed. He is using his personal history of a Christian to draw comparisons between the dogmatic sides of christianity, atheism, and feminism. While he does blanket-mention "feminists," it is implicitly qualified by the extreme and/or closed-minded ones. For proof of this, you need only look to the beginning paragraphs:[/QUOTE]
Most of what you posted is pretty moot when the rest of the blogpost is generalizing garbage.
It's like defending "I'm not racist but..." statements because "well they said they're not racist so.............."
Plus your defense is pretty shit anyways. You're saying that "oh he's only talking about the bad feminists" when your proof says "oh i try not to generalize atheists"
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52285549]Most of what you posted is pretty moot when the rest of the blogpost is generalizing garbage.
It's like defending "I'm not racist but..." statements because "well they said they're not racist so.............."
Plus your defense is pretty shit anyways. You're saying that "oh he's only talking about the bad feminists" when your proof says "oh i try not to generalize atheists"[/QUOTE]
Well then it sounds like you just disagree with his main point, IE "I hate labels" with a side of "the people using this label are making everything into identity politics."
[quote]Feminism has dug it's way into the gaming industry. Every game is now scrutinized for having too weak a female presence or too strong a male presence. Female characters must be strong and independent and not require a man, yet they also must not be strong or independent because they are then somehow a "Ms. Male" character. They must not wear revealing clothing because that is objectification, yet people must not demand they change their clothing because that's oppression. Anita Sarkeesian hated Laura Crofts outfit because it was too revealing, yet the girl in Beyond Good and Evil wore the exact freaking same outfit and Anita used that as a positive example of women in video games. Anita also said a female version of Link in the Zelda series would be a "Ms. Male" version and would be bad, yet she re-tweeted Movie-Bob's article on why a female Link would be a good thing.[/quote]
You say it's "generalizing garbage," but he has many examples peppered throughout. The only unsupported parts of his argument are the paragraphs that start with "There are going to be people who will tell you that..," "Ultimately, the fact that these people are..," and "The leaders gave voices to only a select few bloggers and celebrities..."
While not perfect, admittedly, it's his blog. This seems like a stream-of-consciousness kind of post. He didn't submit an essay to some national paper. He barely even posts on it; a whopping five posts ranging from July of 2015 to late June of 2016. He's not using this to grandstand his ideology, which you disagree with.
My point is that one "strange rant" on his blog doesn't really mean shit. I mean, you and I have most certainly have had our share of nonsensical rants, not to mention the fact that he primarily does videos, not articles - he's a film man, not an english major.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
